--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > A clever poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA > tapping > > domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected > terrorists > > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't > state that. It > > just asks if people would approve of impeachment if Bush approved > of wire taps > > without a warrant, which could be a call between any two American > citizens > > within the country and that is not what the NSA is doing. It has > been known > > and common knowledge since the story broke that the calls being > tapped are > > calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects. > > The point is that if there's no judicial oversight, > they can wiretap anyone they want. What this poll > says is that the American people don't trust Bush > to limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists > calling into the U.S. from abroad. > > > > > What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the > issue and scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in > on their private conversations. But as the debate went on through > the spring, it didn't work. People realized Bush has much more > important things to do than listen in on their personal > conversations and would much rather have him be able to implement > the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape > when the NSA has to be able to move quickly on incoming phone > calls that are a matter of national security.
"Silly red tape" is one of the lies the Republicans have been pushing during the "debate." Nobody is tied up in "silly red tape" by the FISA requirements. The NSA is not inhibited from acting quickly on incoming phone calls that are a matter of national security. So that argument is a total crock. The point, once again, is that without judicial oversight, the NSA is not required to have a well- founded suspicion to listen in on a phone call. Why should the administration be afraid of that requirement? The very fact that Bush doesn't want to have to get warrants arouses suspicion that the NSA will not be selective about who they listen to. A majority of the American people DO NOT TRUST the Bush administration to operate freely without judicial oversight. And as somebody pointed out awhile back, for those who *do* trust Bush, there is one absolutely ironclad rebuttal to their argument that the administration should be able to wiretap anyone it pleases without a warrant: President Hillary Rodham Clinton. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/